ICANN’s next public meeting, and all its public meetings thereafter, will be a day shorter than usual, following a decision to cancel the regular Friday morning program.

No Friday means no public meeting of the board of directors.

While the move is being characterized as an effort to enhance the effectiveness of ICANN’s board – a particular concern, frequently voiced, of chairman Steve Crocker – it’s also a perplexing shift away from ICANN’s core tenet of transparency.

One of the effects could be to mask dissent on the board.

From now on, it appears that all of ICANN’s top-level decision-making will happen in private.

Instead of wrapping up each public meeting with a board session at which resolutions get voted on, each meeting will instead be book-ended by less formal “community sessions”.

During these sessions, the board will apparently report to attendees about what it has been doing since the last meeting and what it plans to do before the next meeting.

We believe that the removal of the Friday public Board meeting and its replacement with two Board community sessions will improve the effectiveness of both the Board and the staff and increase the time that the Board has to interact with the community.

That may well be true — time will tell — but let’s look at what the ICANN community is almost certainly losing.

First, there will be no more transcripts of board meetings at all.

Today, only the public meetings have published recordings and transcripts. Intersessional meetings are minuted, but not transcribed. If recordings are made, they are not published.

Killing off transcripts completely is a pretty obvious step backwards for an organization committed by its bylaws to “operate to the maximum extent feasible in an open and transparent manner”.

Second, if there is dissent on the board, it will be essentially shielded from the community’s view for some time after the fact.

In both cases, certain directors read prepared statements into the record harshly criticizing the majority view.

In March 2011, for example, George Sadowsky stated that ICM’s purported community support for .xxx was “illusory” and that approving the TLD could lead to DNS Balkanization.

And with new gTLDs last June, Mike Silber abstained in the belief that the program was incomplete and that the vote had been scheduled “based on artificial and ego-driven deadlines”.

In both cases, the ICANN community heard the dissenting views – in person, webcast, recorded and transcribed – moments before the vote actually took place.

With no public board meetings, it seems likely that in future that we’re going to have to wait a week to read the voting record for any given resolution and a month or more to read directors’ statements.

Under ICANN’s bylaws, the voting record, which breaks down who voted for and against resolutions, is contained in a preliminary report that is not published for seven days after the vote.

Also under the bylaws, directors’ voting statements are not published until the minutes of the meeting are approved at the board’s next meeting, typically one to two months later.

If the new procedures had been in effect last year, the statements of Sadowsky and Silber would not have been published for over a month after they were made.

With that in mind, it’s clear that killing off the public board meetings could in no way be seen as a positive step for transparency at ICANN.

It’s true that these meetings have for several years been pure theater, but it was theater with value.